Acceptance of animal research in our science community.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bergmeister K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4866631 | biostudies-literature | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Acceptance of animal research in our science community.
Bergmeister Konstantin K Podesser Bruno B
F1000Research 20160304
Animal research is debated highly controversial, as evident by the "Stop Vivi-section" initiative in 2015. Despite widespread protest to the initiative by researchers, no data is available on the European medical research community's opinion towards animal research. In this single-center study, we investigated this question in a survey of students and staff members at the Medical University of Vienna. A total of 906 participants responded to the survey, of which 82.8% rated the relevance of anim ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Animal welfare science features interdisciplinary and collaborative working across fields, spanning behavioural ecology, psychology, veterinary sciences, economics, and fundamental biology. However, education research is not yet prevalent within the animal welfare literature. In a Web of Science topic search there were 188 papers which specifically discussed or explored how to teach animal welfare from 1978 to 2017. Of these, only 34% (n = 61) specifically focused on instructional design or pedagogical research, and these were predominantly within veterinary education (57%). Despite this, the literature is in broad agreement that animal welfare education is an important topic that should be done well. Within the UK, there were a possible 586 animal-related courses within Universities College Admissions Service database for potential students to choose from, highlighting the significance of robust and considered educational practice. The current gaps identified in the literature were discussion of hidden curriculums outside of veterinary degrees, animal-centered education, the blueprinting of assessment, and authentic assessment. Therefore, this review proposes that animal welfare scientists interested in education consider discipline based educational research (DBER) practices, and engage more fully with the educational research literature. A key component of DBER is the recognition that specialist knowledge needs to be taught by specialists, and so it is important that animal welfare scientists begin to access educational research too.
| S-EPMC6997439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the past 20 years, the explosion of genomic data collection and the cloud computing revolution have made computational and data science research accessible to anyone with a web browser and an internet connection. However, students at institutions with limited resources have received relatively little exposure to curricula or professional development opportunities that lead to careers in genomic data science. To broaden participation in genomics research, the scientific community needs to support these programs in local education and research at underserved institutions (UIs). These include community colleges, historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities that support ethnically, racially, and socioeconomically underrepresented students in the United States. We have formed the Genomic Data Science Community Network to support students, faculty, and their networks to identify opportunities and broaden access to genomic data science. These opportunities include expanding access to infrastructure and data, providing UI faculty development opportunities, strengthening collaborations among faculty, recognizing UI teaching and research excellence, fostering student awareness, developing modular and open-source resources, expanding course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), building curriculum, supporting student professional development and research, and removing financial barriers through funding programs and collaborator support.
| S-EPMC9341509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Community science can provide crucial insights into population dynamics and demography. To date, its effectiveness for understanding human-wildlife interactions has not been tested. This is vital for designing effective wildlife management plans. We used a case study of an individually marked population of mute swans Cygnus olor, to test the reliability of community scientist data for quantifying self-reported interactions. We compared 5,251 community scientist sightings of individually marked birds with 317 observations recorded through systematic recording methods, to test the reliability of sightings, and of self-reported human-swan interactions. 98.86% of ring readings were correctly reported; sighting reliability increased with experience and was higher when the observer fed the birds. Community scientist observations were reliable for quantifying family group size, but not clutch size. Self-reported data for assessing feeding interactions with wildlife were not comparable with systematic recording methods. 22% of standardised observations recorded supplementary feeding of swans by people. This is the first systematic quantification of the frequency of interaction of wild waterfowl with humans through supplementary feeding in the Northern hemisphere; we highlight potential impacts of this common human-wildlife interaction for both birds and people. We provide new insights into using community science methods as potential alternatives to more time-consuming systematic methods. Community science methods may be useful across a range of systems where humans and wildlife interact, but we highlight the need for validation of the reliability of community scientist data, particularly self-reported behaviours, before being used to inform management and conservation practices.
| S-EPMC11751146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is long-standing scientific interest in understanding purposeful movement by animals and humans. Traditionally, collecting data on individual moving entities was difficult and time-consuming, limiting scientific progress. The growth of location-aware and other geospatial technologies for capturing, managing and analyzing moving objects data are shattering these limitations, leading to revolutions in animal movement ecology and human mobility science. Despite parallel transitions towards massive individual-level data collected automatically via sensors, there is little scientific cross-fertilization across the animal and human divide. There are potential synergies from converging these separate domains towards an integrated science of movement. This paper discusses the data-driven revolutions in the animal movement ecology and human mobility science, their contrasting worldviews and, as examples of complementarity, transdisciplinary questions that span both fields. We also identify research challenges that should be met to develop an integrated science of movement trajectories.
| S-EPMC7531019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To advance justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in science, we must first understand and improve the dominant-culture frameworks that impede progress and, second, we must intentionally create more equitable models. The present authors call ourselves the ICBOs and Allies Workgroup (ICBOs stands for independent community-based organizations), and we represent communities historically excluded from the sciences. Together with institutional allies and advisors, we began our research because we wanted our voices to be heard, and we hoped to bring a different perspective to doing science with and not on communities. We created a community framework to guide our research and we led all aspects of our work, from creating research protocols to analyzing and interpreting the data to disseminating the results. We share our research framework, methods, and results so that science institutions can better understand how to intentionally create more equitable research partnerships with our communities.
| S-EPMC9169893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gaps in the implementation of effective interventions impact nearly all cancer prevention and control strategies in the US including Massachusetts. To close these implementation gaps, evidence-based interventions must be rapidly and equitably implemented in settings serving racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse populations. This paper provides a brief overview of The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity (ISCCCE) and describes how we have operationalized our commitment to a robust community-engaged center that aims to close these gaps. We describe how ISCCCE is organized and how the principles of community-engaged research are embedded across the center. Principles of community engagement have been operationalized across all components of ISCCCE. We have intentionally integrated these principles throughout all structures and processes and have developed evaluation strategies to assess whether the quality of our partnerships reflects the principles. ISCCCE is a comprehensive community-engaged infrastructure for studying efficient, pragmatic, and equity-focused implementation and adaptation strategies for cancer prevention in historically and currently disadvantaged communities with built-in methods to evaluate the quality of community engagement. This engaged research center is designed to maximize the impact and relevance of implementation research on cancer control in community health centers.
| S-EPMC10130842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The transfer of new discoveries into both clinical practice and the wider community calls for reliance on interdisciplinary translational teams that include researchers with different areas of expertise, representatives of health care systems and community organizations, and patients. Engaging new stakeholders in research, however, calls for a reconsideration or expansion of the meaning of ethics in translational research. We explored expert opinion on the applicability of ethical principles commonly practiced in community-engaged research (CEnR) to translational research. To do so, we conducted 2 online, modified-Delphi panels with 63 expert stakeholders who iteratively rated and discussed 9 ethical principles commonly used in CEnR in terms of their importance and feasibility for use in translational research. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to analyze the data and determine agreement and disagreement among participating experts. Both panels agreed that ethical translational research should be "grounded in trust." Although the academic panel endorsed "culturally appropriate" and "forthcoming with community about study risks and benefits," the mixed academic-community panel endorsed "scientifically valid" and "ready to involve community in interpretation and dissemination" as important and feasible principles of ethical translational research. These findings suggest that in addition to protecting human subjects, contemporary translational science models need to account for the interests of, and owe ethical obligations to, members of the investigative team and the community at large.
| S-EPMC4833614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAnimal research (AR) findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals.MethodsAll AR published from January to June 2012 in three high-impact critical care journals were reviewed. A case report form and instruction manual with clear definitions were created, based on published recommendations, including the ARRIVE guidelines. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.ResultsSeventy-seven AR publications were reviewed. Our primary outcome (animal strain, sex, and weight or age described) was reported in 52 (68%; 95% confidence interval, 56% to 77%). Of the 77 publications, 47 (61%) reported randomization; of these, 3 (6%) reported allocation concealment, and 1 (2%) the randomization procedure. Of the 77 publications, 31 (40%) reported some type of blinding; of these, disease induction (2, 7%), intervention (7, 23%), and/or subjective outcomes (17, 55%) were blinded. A sample size calculation was reported in 4/77 (5%). Animal numbers were missing in the Methods section in 16 (21%) publications; when stated, the median was 32 (range 6 to 320; interquartile range, 21 to 70). Extra animals used were mentioned in the Results section in 31 (40%) publications; this number was unclear in 23 (74%), and >100 for 12 (16%). When reporting most outcomes, numbers with denominators were given in 35 (45%), with no unaccounted numbers in 24 (31%), and no animals excluded from analysis in 20 (26%). Most (49, 64%) studies reported >40, and another 19 (25%) reported 21 to 40 statistical comparisons. Internal validity limitations were discussed in 7 (9%), and external validity (to humans) discussed in 71 (92%), most with no (30, 42%) or only a vague (9, 13%) limitation to this external validity mentioned.ConclusionsThe reported methodological quality of AR was poor. Unless the quality of AR significantly improves, the practice may be in serious jeopardy of losing public support.
| S-EPMC4126494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe institutions that comprise the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences continue to explore and develop community-engaged research strategies and to study the role of community academic partnerships in advancing the science of community engagement.ObjectivesTo explore CTSA institutions in relation to an Institute of Medicine recommendation that community engagement occur in all stages of translational research and be defined and evaluated consistently.MethodsA sequential multimethods study starting with an online pilot survey followed by survey respondents and site informant interviews. A revised survey was sent to the community engagement and evaluation leads at each CTSA institution, requesting a single institutional response about the definitions, indicators, and metrics of community engagement and community-engaged research.ResultsA plurality of CTSA institutions selected the definition of community engagement from the Principles of Community Engagement. Although claiming unique institutional priorities create barriers to developing shared metrics, responses indicate an overall lack of attention to the development and deployment of metrics to assess community engagement in and contributions to research.ConclusionsAlthough definitions of community engagement differ among CTSAs, there seem to be more similarities than differences in the indicators and measures tracked and reported on across all definitions, perhaps owing to commonalities among program infrastructures and goals. Metrics will likely need to be specific to translational research stages. The assessment of community engagement within translational science will require increased institutional commitment.
| S-EPMC6237095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Partnered research may help bridge the gap between research and practice. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) supports collaboration between scientific researchers and community members that is designed to improve capacity, enhance trust, and address health disparities. Systems science aims to understand the complex ways human-ecological coupled systems interact and apply knowledge to management practices. Although CBPR and systems science display complementary principles, only a few articles describe synergies between these 2 approaches. In this article, we explore opportunities to utilize concepts from systems science to understand the development, evolution, and sustainability of 1 CBPR partnership: The Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance (CHARA). Systems science tools may help CHARA and other CBPR partnerships sustain their core identities while co-evolving in conjunction with individual members, community priorities, and a changing healthcare landscape. Our goal is to highlight CHARA as a case for applying the complementary approaches of CBPR and systems science to (1) improve academic/community partnership functioning and sustainability, (2) ensure that research addresses the priorities and needs of end users, and (3) support more timely application of scientific discoveries into routine practice.
| S-EPMC6390389 | biostudies-literature